In a political landscape already thick with intrigue and controversy, the recent summit between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has thrown fresh fuel on the fire of America’s ongoing debate over election integrity and international influence. The meeting, held in early August 2025, was initially billed as a step toward resolving Russia’s war in Ukraine. Yet, as reported by multiple outlets, its aftermath has been dominated by Trump’s renewed campaign against mail-in voting—a campaign, he claims, bolstered by none other than Putin himself.
According to Mississippi Today, Trump emerged from the Alaskan summit touting Putin’s opinion that mail-in voting was responsible for fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Trump told reporters, “Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting. ... It’s impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections.” He further relayed Putin’s assertion that “no country” uses mail-in voting, a claim that is demonstrably false. In reality, many democracies around the world—including the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia—have robust mail-in voting systems.
What’s more, Trump announced his intention to draft an executive order to end mail-in voting in the United States. “An executive order is being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they’re corrupt,” he declared. However, the legal mechanics of such a move are murky at best. The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the authority to set election laws, with Congress retaining the right to override those laws. The president’s role is limited to signing or vetoing congressional measures. As Mississippi Today points out, it’s difficult to imagine how a president—any president—could unilaterally abolish mail-in voting nationwide. Even Trump’s own staff seemed to walk back his claim, suggesting that the path forward is not as straightforward as he implied.
This latest push comes at a time when the majority of U.S. states have already embraced mail-in voting. Currently, 36 states—spanning the political spectrum from red to blue—offer universal mail-in voting. Many of these states had such systems in place during the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections, years when Trump both won and lost. The popularity of mail-in voting is rooted in its convenience and its role in promoting civic engagement. According to Mississippi Today, politicians initially passed these laws because their constituents favored them, appreciating the flexibility and accessibility they provided.
Despite these facts, Trump’s stance finds a receptive audience in places like Mississippi, where skepticism of mail-in voting runs deep. Governor Tate Reeves, a Republican, has long opposed no-excuse mail-in voting. In 2020, Reeves stated on social media, “I will also do everything in my power to make sure universal mail-in voting and no-excuse early voting are not allowed in MS—not while I’m governor! Too much chaos.” Mississippi is one of just 14 states that do not permit no-excuse mail-in voting, and it is among only three states that offer no form of no-excuse early voting, whether by mail or in person. In most of the country, voters can cast their ballots before Election Day without providing a specific reason. In Mississippi, anyone under 65 must have a valid excuse to vote early—an approach that aligns closely with the restrictive practices favored by autocratic regimes.
Indeed, as Mississippi Today wryly observed, “Vlad Putin would most likely endorse Mississippi election laws.” Russia has long been criticized by international observers for its lack of free and fair elections, a pattern that stands in stark contrast to the American tradition of expanding voter access. In Russia, Putin could likely end mail-in voting with the stroke of a pen. In the United States, the process is far more complicated—by design.
It’s important to note that the security concerns cited by Trump and his allies are addressed by existing safeguards in most states. Voters must sign the envelopes containing their mail-in ballots, and those signatures are verified against records from when they registered to vote. Additionally, many states require voters to provide identifying information, such as the last four digits of their Social Security number, a driver’s license number, or a unique code. These measures are intended to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of the process. As Mississippi Today pointed out, “If people trust doing banking online, they should feel comfortable with mail-in voting.”
Yet, the debate rages on, fueled by high-profile endorsements and political calculations. Trump’s willingness to amplify Putin’s claims about mail-in voting raises uncomfortable questions about the intersection of American democracy and foreign influence. Why would a former U.S. president lend credence to the assertions of a leader whose own elections are widely regarded as undemocratic? And what does this say about the state of political discourse in the United States?
The Alaskan summit was notable for another reason: the involvement of Melania Trump. In a move that received little attention in the mainstream press, Melania penned a letter to Vladimir Putin encouraging him to protect the innocence and well-being of children. Donald Trump personally delivered the letter to Putin during their meeting. While the letter did not explicitly mention the war in Ukraine or the plight of the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children orphaned or abducted by Russian forces, its underlying message was clear. As reported by The American Independent, “it would be hard to miss the letter’s true meaning.”
Observers have noted the delicate balance Melania attempted to strike—addressing the welfare of children without directly confronting Putin over his actions in Ukraine. The letter was reportedly well received by the Russian president, but its long-term impact remains uncertain. Some critics argue that such gestures, while well-intentioned, do little to alter the harsh realities faced by Ukrainian children caught in the crossfire of war and occupation.
As the dust settles from the Alaska summit, Americans are left to reckon with a political environment where the boundaries between domestic policy, international relations, and personal diplomacy are increasingly blurred. Trump’s renewed assault on mail-in voting—now buttressed by Putin’s dubious endorsement—has reignited partisan battles over how, and by whom, elections should be conducted. Meanwhile, the symbolic overtures made by Melania Trump serve as a reminder that even in the arena of geopolitics, personal appeals and private messages can sometimes make headlines of their own.
For now, the fate of mail-in voting in America hangs in the balance, contested not only in state legislatures and courtrooms but also on the world stage. As political leaders debate the future of American democracy, the voices of ordinary voters—and the safeguards designed to protect their rights—remain as vital as ever.